What is fascism?

[JWB]

Fascism: Socialism with a Capitalist Veneer

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities.

https://fee.org/articles/fascism-socialism-with-a-capitalist-veneer/

 

........and......

https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/fascismnature.htm

[BansheeOne]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

How is all of this power seeking behavior?

I said these are classical 70/80s Western socialist positions shared by today's Western New Right, because they're popular with prospective voters - often on an emotional rather than rational level. Parties espousing them might well be serious about them, but first of all they are to attract popular support and gain power. Which was your contention about the Nazi's use of "socialism", and the similarity with parties today.

Of course the ideological reasoning behind those positions may be different on the Left and Right, but then basic Nazi ideology was completely different from communism, too. So either you argue that parties advertizing the same positions are of the same ilk - Nazis and communists, or New Right and traditional socialists; or you argue they are different because their ideological reasoning is. There are valid points for both approaches, but you can't have it both ways at the same time. 

Looking at your replies to my previous post it's however evident that you have a far bigger problem in that you think America-centric, don't understand European politics and make no effort to. When I talk of Western parties, you hear only "American" and snap into canned responses from (domestic) US debate. In doing so you sometimes don't even notice that you are agreeing with me.

Examples: I note anti-interventionism is one of those popular classical socialist, now New Right positions. You ask when Europe is finally going to step up (instead of relying on the US I guess), and where our carriers are. Complete non-sequitur: Europe has a hard time stepping up because anti-interventionism is a popular position among its voters, promoted and exploited by both the Left and Right. You know, people do care about what their own country does and doesn't do first before they think about the US (though the belief that the US should stop "meddling" in world affairs is another shared belief between the European Left and Right). 

Also you say "removing national economic regulations isn't power seeking" as an attempted retort to my mentioning the attitude of both left- and right-wingers towards the EU. Well yes, we're in full agreement - it's aforementioned wingnuts criticizing the EU for making member states remove national regulations in the name of a level playing field within the Single Market, which they see as evil globalist capitalist infringing upon traditional workers protections, provision of essential utilities by the state, etc. 

Frankly there's little sense in debating the historical relationship of ideologies when you not only don't know anything of the subject but don't want to learn either, because you're only interested in using the topic as a resonant screen to air your positions in contemporary American partisan debate. Which has long plagued many discussions on TankNet, and I think it was a terribly bad call to move this thread to the FFZ and reinforce the deterioration, contrary to the expressive reasoning it was originally started in MilHist. 

[RETAC21]

32 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I said these are classical 70/80s Western socialist positions shared by today's Western New Right, because they're popular with prospective voters - often on an emotional rather than rational level. Parties espousing them might well be serious about them, but first of all they are to attract popular support and gain power. Which was your contention about the Nazi's use of "socialism", and the similarity with parties today.

Of course the ideological reasoning behind those positions may be different on the Left and Right, but then basic Nazi ideology was completely different from communism, too. So either you argue that parties advertizing the same positions are of the same ilk - Nazis and communists, or New Right and traditional socialists; or you argue they are different because their ideological reasoning is. There are valid points for both approaches, but you can't have it both ways at the same time. 

Looking at your replies to my previous post it's however evident that you have a far bigger problem in that you think America-centric, don't understand European politics and make no effort to. When I talk of Western parties, you hear only "American" and snap into canned responses from (domestic) US debate. In doing so you sometimes don't even notice that you are agreeing with me.

Examples: I note anti-interventionism is one of those popular classical socialist, now New Right positions. You ask when Europe is finally going to step up (instead of relying on the US I guess), and where our carriers are. Complete non-sequitur: Europe has a hard time stepping up because anti-interventionism is a popular position among its voters, promoted and exploited by both the Left and Right. You know, people do care about what their own country does and doesn't do first before they think about the US (though the belief that the US should stop "meddling" in world affairs is another shared belief between the European Left and Right). 

Also you say "removing national economic regulations isn't power seeking" as an attempted retort to my mentioning the attitude of both left- and right-wingers towards the EU. Well yes, we're in full agreement - it's aforementioned wingnuts criticizing the EU for making member states remove national regulations in the name of a level playing field within the Single Market, which they see as evil globalist capitalist infringing upon traditional workers protections, provision of essential utilities by the state, etc. 

Frankly there's little sense in debating the historical relationship of ideologies when you not only don't know anything of the subject but don't want to learn either, because you're only interested in using the topic as a resonant screen to air your positions in contemporary American partisan debate. Which has long plagued many discussions on TankNet, and I think it was a terribly bad call to move this thread to the FFZ and reinforce the deterioration, contrary to the expressive reasoning it was originally started in MilHist. 

Well, in Milhist it was already going down the drain...

[sunday]

Thank God Germany and Europe are not the same yet.

[bojan]

But soon....

[RETAC21]

Just now, bojan said:

But soon....

After the German vaccine is applied to alles...

[sunday]

Berlin, the Euro city that channels Portland, OR. Now with more Commies.

[seahawk]

4 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Does that include Gun Jesus?

Absolutely yes.

[lucklucky]

Just now, Stuart Galbraith said:

They had 63 more years, so its not that much of an achievement.

And if we are going to throw the bodies of the various Communist affiliates on the pile, in Vietnam, Cambodia and Africa, then why not the South American states, Spain, South Korea, Phillipines and Italy. Ill warrant there isnt much in it.

We pretend now that Communism was a greater threat than Fascism. Much as I loathe Communism and all it stands for, none of them ever bombed my country.

So if Nazis did not bombed your country they would be seen by another light...

Communists sabotaged your factories to protect Nazis attacks, offered the Nazis the Basis Nord to attack your shipping  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_Nord and later in Cold War they threat your country with hundreds of nuclear missiles...

Fascists are not Nazis.   Not all non-communist dictatorships are Fascist. But you flip flop between them as convenient.

If South Korea dictatorship was Fascist then every dictatorship not identified by a Red Star is automatically Fascist?

Going to paroxysms were the Romans Emperors Fascists?  the Egyptian Faraohs were Fascist ? The Mayas?

So extending RETAC21 point you do have a huge time span of Fascists around...

Communism was run by diverse people with always same results: Asians, Africans so adopted by many cultures besides Europeans. And had always the same results: killing in hundred of thousands or millions.

What would happen if adopted by usually called Anglo-Saxon culture? i bet same results. Communists did not needed to bomb to kill millions. A bullet, torture, forced work-slavery  or engineered famines were enough.

In the end the question is always this and regardless of Communism and valid for any political movement : How much power they reclaim over other people lives.

 

 

 

[R011]

Fascists may not be Nazis, but Hitler's Nazis were fascists, and some of the fascist movements in countries allied to Germany were much closer to the NSDAP than Mussolini's pre 1943 Fascisti.

[sunday]

Conflating more or less Authoritarian, Conservative regimes, like Romania, Hungary, Poland* or Finland, with Fascism is a very Communist thing.

* Feel free to search for "fascist" in this quite Commie text.

[Mikel2]

Slight tangent -  I've been meaning to send a Chinese friend (PRC) a copy of "Fahrenheit 451".  Will I get that friend in trouble??   It doesn't look like the book is banned there.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Mikel2

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

I said these are classical 70/80s Western socialist positions shared by today's Western New Right, because they're popular with prospective voters - often on an emotional rather than rational level. Parties espousing them might well be serious about them, but first of all they are to attract popular support and gain power. Which was your contention about the Nazi's use of "socialism", and the similarity with parties today.

This falls into the Fascist drank beer, you drink beer, so you're a fascist trope. 

Socialism, state ownership of the means of production. 
and/or
Social welfare programs in combination of the state ownership. 

If the state lets you keep your factory but positons a member of the SS or Gestapo as a minder to make sure you're doing things they want, it's just a veneer of ownership.

All the other stuff about foreign policy, dialing back on regulations, etc just because the socialists make those noises doesn't make anyone else who also makes those noises also socialist. 
 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Of course the ideological reasoning behind those positions may be different on the Left and Right, but then basic Nazi ideology was completely different from communism, too.

To what extent was it different than communism/Soviet Socialism? The Political officers wore different uniforms?  Suits and leather coats vs baggy uniforms and brown caps with red piping? 

From the American perspective, which is what I know best, both utterly conflict with the ideals of the English Enlightenment so they're equally divergent and foreign. 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

So either you argue that parties advertizing the same positions are of the same ilk - Nazis and communists, or New Right and traditional socialists; or you argue they are different because their ideological reasoning is. There are valid points for both approaches, but you can't have it both ways at the same time. 

What powers are normally at that level of government and specifically is rather important to state. 

Comparisons between the US and the EU fall short of that as there's a lot of differences in how the unions are formed and what makes them up. The simple fact that I suspect the Texas National guard probably has more combat power than Most of the EU is notional to that...for example. 

 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Looking at your replies to my previous post it's however evident that you have a far bigger problem in that you think America-centric, don't understand European politics and make no effort to. When I talk of Western parties, you hear only "American" and snap into canned responses from (domestic) US debate. In doing so you sometimes don't even notice that you are agreeing with me.

Which European Politics should I understand and to what detail? Which capitol? 

Do you honestly understand politics in the US across the 50 state capitols/Governors Mansions as well as in DC? 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Examples: I note anti-interventionism is one of those popular classical socialist, now New Right positions. You ask when Europe is finally going to step up (instead of relying on the US I guess), and where our carriers are. Complete non-sequitur: Europe has a hard time stepping up because anti-interventionism is a popular position among its voters, promoted and exploited by both the Left and Right. You know, people do care about what their own country does and doesn't do first before they think about the US (though the belief that the US should stop "meddling" in world affairs is another shared belief between the European Left and Right). 

Strangely we seem to go from one extreme to the other. People complain we aren'd doing enough and then when we do we are doing too much. 

 

 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Also you say "removing national economic regulations isn't power seeking" as an attempted retort to my mentioning the attitude of both left- and right-wingers towards the EU. Well yes, we're in full agreement - it's aforementioned wingnuts criticizing the EU for making member states remove national regulations in the name of a level playing field within the Single Market, which they see as evil globalist capitalist infringing upon traditional workers protections, provision of essential utilities by the state, etc. 

That's concentrating power. Which is different. That's not removing regulations, it very well could be increasing it if the national government doesn't have that power in the first place or has a limitation. Harmonizing Europes Gun laws such that Swiss and other nationalities are prohibited from owning what they own now is in no way shape or fashion a reduction in power seeking. 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Frankly there's little sense in debating the historical relationship of ideologies when you not only don't know anything of the subject but don't want to learn either,

Well, if you speak in generalities and not specifics it's hard to nail things down to understand, let alone ask questions. 
 

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

and I think it was a terribly bad call to move this thread to the FFZ and reinforce the deterioration, contrary to the expressive reasoning it was originally started in MilHist. 

Well, when it appear that the US politics are being dredged up, I'm sorry if I respond to the points. We just had 4 years of Democrats and Europeans calling our president a fascist authoritarian and frankly, it's beyond old. 

And that was specifically what I was responding to in the MilHist thread as it was those "evil righties pushing religion down on folks by way of their rugged independence" which is just well....off in left field. 

 

[rmgill]

12 minutes ago, Mikel2 said:

Slight tangent -  I've been meaning to send a Chinese friend (PRC) a copy of "Fahrenheit 451".  Will I get that friend in trouble??   It doesn't look like the book is banned there.

That's the problem with authoritarian governments. What's ok can suddenly be a problem and you have no way of knowing.  They'd probably be better with a hand delivered samizdat version. 

[R011]

31 minutes ago, sunday said:

Conflating more or less Authoritarian, Conservative regimes, like Romania, Hungary, Poland* or Finland, with Fascism is a very Communist thing.

* Feel free to search for "fascist" in this quite Commie text.

I'm much less concerned about assholes being conflated with slightly different assholes than assholes being conflated with decent people who aren't sufficiently Marxist.

[rmgill]

1 minute ago, R011 said:

I'm much less concerned about assholes being conflated with slightly different assholes than assholes being conflated with decent people who aren't sufficiently Marxist.

This. 

I'm working my way through the latest Joe Rogan Podcast where he's interviewing Ayaan Hersi Ali. The simple fact that the American left throws the ridicule they do at her considering the real examples of oppression she grew up with in Somalia, Kenya, etc... 

😡
 

[rmgill]

And Banshee I'm not sure you can be mad I don't understand European Politics. We can't even get a gaggle of Europeans to agree on what Fascism is and is like when they HAD fascism in their countries. Do Europeans understand European Politics in all of the EU member nations? I think not. 
 

[lucklucky]

Just now, R011 said:

Fascists may not be Nazis, but Hitler's Nazis were fascists, and some of the fascist movements in countries allied to Germany were much closer to the NSDAP than Mussolini's pre 1943 Fascisti.

Then shouldn't you call them Nazis or Neo-Nazis?  Vichy for example collaborated actively with Nazis in rounding up French Jews to send them to Holocaust, instead Italians dragged their feet even of Jews from other nationalities . A part of that Vichy strand was the Action Française of Charles Maurras .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurras

 

[Steven P Allen]

I get the distinct impression that many Left-leaning folks reject the idea of the Political Circle because it removes from them the comfortable distance they like to pretend exists between them and Racism.  "Only those dirty %astards on the Right have anything in common with Fascism!"  An understandable--but dreadfully mistaken--sentiment.

[R011]

54 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Then shouldn't you call them Nazis or Neo-Nazis?  Vichy for example collaborated actively with Nazis in rounding up French Jews to send them to Holocaust, instead Italians dragged their feet even of Jews from other nationalities . A part of that Vichy strand was the Action Française of Charles Maurras .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurras

 

I've got no objections, save pedantry, to calling people Nazis when they act like Nazis and beleive the things they do.

[sunday]

Gents, it should be remembered that homeschooling is not illegal in Germany. Well, kinda, err...

https://medium.com/@FreisinnigeZtg/homeschooling-is-not-illegal-in-germany-40b96f82d51e
 

Quote

Now, this may be shocking for some: But it is perfectly legal in Germany to educate your children at home, whether you do it yourself or bring in someone else for the purpose! There are even constitutional guarantees that protect the family and its autonomy, and also the privacy of your home.

And it is also very common: My father taught me some woodworking, I failed. I also extracted an education from him and my mother by asking questions no end. And I was envious that other childrens’ parents could teach them how to play musical instruments. Many did. Some children could already read and write when they entered school, others had learned a second language at home. I could make this list much longer.

So if homeschooling means that you can educate your children at home as you like, you are free to do that in Germany. What you cannot do in Germany is— and I guess that is what people mean when they make the claim: You cannot only educate your children at home. They also have to spend some time at a school and get an education there. But that does not exclude that you can also educate them otherwise.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by sunday

[seahawk]

7 hours ago, Steven P Allen said:

I get the distinct impression that many Left-leaning folks reject the idea of the Political Circle because it removes from them the comfortable distance they like to pretend exists between them and Racism.  "Only those dirty %astards on the Right have anything in common with Fascism!"  An understandable--but dreadfully mistaken--sentiment.

Just ask an a strong left leaning person about the Jewish inhabitants of Israel to see a racism, that would make every Nazi proud. 

[sunday]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Just ask an a strong left leaning person about the Jewish inhabitants of Israel to see a racism, that would make every Nazi proud. 

Pretty much. A preferred insult among the radical Left here to fling to Centrists. Acquaintance of mine was called "you filthy Jew sow" some time ago when she was poll watching during a general election.

[Nikolas93TS]

 

[RETAC21]

11 hours ago, R011 said:

Fascists may not be Nazis, but Hitler's Nazis were fascists, and some of the fascist movements in countries allied to Germany were much closer to the NSDAP than Mussolini's pre 1943 Fascisti.

But these movements rarely achieved power, being kept as useful tools to keep the real fascists quiet. The Arrow Cross and the Quisling movement became useful pets of the real Nazis until they got fed up with them in the second case. The real fascist party in Spain, Falange, became impotent with their amalgamation with the Carlist party (whose ideals were 180º form theirs) and never amounted to much in the Franco regime